No. 19-6054
Tags: armed-career-criminal-act collateral-review constitutional-vagueness criminal-sentencing johnson-ruling mandatory-sentencing new-right retroactivity sentencing-guidelines vagueness vagueness-doctrine welch-precedent
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether this Court's rulings in Johnson and Welch , retroactively invalidating the residual clause of the ACCA because it was unconstitutionally vague, apply to an identically worded provision in a different mandatory sentencing scheme, that is, the residual clause of the career-offender provision of the former mandatory Sentencing Guidelines or does this application require recognition of a "new right"?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether this Court's rulings in Johnson and Welch apply to the residual clause of the career-offender provision of the former mandatory Sentencing Guidelines
Docket Entries
2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-09
Reply of petitioner John Hemby filed. (Distributed)
2019-11-25
Memorandum of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
2019-10-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 25, 2019.
2019-10-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 25, 2019 to November 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-09-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 25, 2019)
Attorneys
John Hemby
Frederick William Ulrich — Federal Public Defender's Office, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent